Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.*

(At first glance it has more caveats, but in practice they're all present in US 1st amendment caselaw as well)

It is not true that these are remotely equivalent. US case-law says, you have freedom of speech unless it specifically calls for violence or threatens very, very, direct harm ie calling "fire" in a theater (and yes, even copyrighted material can be quoted or satirized as necessary to make a political statement).

"For the prevention of disorder of crime, for the protection of health and morals for the protection of the reputation or rights of others" -- those are wide, gaping holes which make this statement absolutely useless.

The US has the same caveats, it's just that the limitations of free speech are decided in case law instead of specifically codified.

> For the prevention of disorder of crime

There are all sorts of types of speech that are criminal in the US because they are either a crime, or encourage/enable crime in some way.

> for the protection of health and morals

There are plenty of examples in the US of speech being limited for health reasons.

Protection of morals is a bit more of a gray area, but certainly there are historical examples of the US limiting speech for reasons that amount to morality.

> for the protection of the reputation or rights of others

Again, libel is a crime in the US.

> Again, libel is a crime in the US.

There is no criminal defamation in the U.S. at a federal level, and only a minority of states have such an offense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#C...

According to the Wikipedia page said laws are rarely used, though I cannot speak to that myself.

The way it is interpreted is important. I agree that a "health" exemption is used in the US for things like cigarette ads, but as far as "reputation", US courts would laugh at the "right to be forgotten". Basically, in the US, free speech has priority over just about everything else, while most of the EU seems to toss it whenever it comes into conflict with anything else.

Libel specifically says you cannot say provably false things. You can ruin a reputation, without lying, without a problem in the US.

The difference is evidenced by the "right to be forgotten" ruling in Europe, where the ability to hide past actions was deemed more important than the right to publicize those links / events.

Unless it's about agriculture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws (civil burden of proof, and reversed in some places).

I agree with your sentiment, but as far as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, I obviously wouldn't recommend it but it's not so simple: "Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago"

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com